This excellent sub-40 second commercial clip does an amazing job of bringing the entire marriage debate right back where it belongs – with the children.
Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. It doesn't matter that that union may be sterile or that it may end up in divorce. Just because the human execution is malfunctioning (sterility) or flawed (divorce) or even broken (abuse), does not make the divine institution flawed. Marriage is what it is and those who pretend otherwise are endangering not only themselves by exposing their tender feelings to more disappointment (marriage appropriation will not yield the acceptance they so yearn for), but our country's innocent future as well - the children.
~Pearl
Posts
22 comments:
Actually, the ad is kind of misleading. As far as I know, you can't teach the "Adam-and-Eve" creation myth in school anyway, unless you teach all religions' creation myths (including atheists'), or it's a religion class - and rightly so. And marriage for same sex couples doesn't change anything for children, unless they're the children of gay parents who would then have legal recognition of their relationship. Of course, enabling those same sex couples to enjoy the tax advantages of marriage could benefit the kids by piling up more stuff under the Christmas tree...
Legalizing the union of two men or two women, doesn't provide children with both gender parents. They don't need more stuff under a Christmas tree--they need both a mom and a dad. No amount of stuff, and no amount of legislation, can take the place of a mom and a dad in an intact family, in a child's life.
Great post, Pearl!
@Seda
Let's work on getting those tax advantages without redefining the word marriage. Obviously, I would prefer that homosexual partnerships not be allowed to raise children at all, but since that is not the case and since legislators seem to like making laws so much, I'm sure we could come up with something all-encompassing (kind of like California's domestic partnership laws currently afford all the same protections as marriage in this state). I assume your beef is with insufficiencies on the national level?
I am not wholly current on what is taught in schools these days since I've been out of school for so long and my children haven't started yet. I ought to be better about knowing, but that is beside the point. My reaction to the video is that CPR Action merely intends to illustrate the mockery that will be made of religious beliefs in schools, whether by teachers or by peers.
(I thought we were going to stick with homeschooling and parenting . . . .)
:0)
@Your, Sincerely
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
Oops! Just got carried away there, I guess... ;-)
I'll stay out of politics mostly, but did want to briefly reflect on this: "Let's work on getting those tax advantages without redefining the word marriage."
Pearl, I think it's too late. Gays and lesbians have had to fight for too long, too hard; we've encountered too much resistance, seen too much of our blood soak into the ground, and even now, religious conservatives who enjoy the protection of hate crimes legislation are fighting hard to keep us from enjoying the same protection. The lines have been drawn in the sand, the trenches dug too deep and reinforced too strongly, on both sides. Even if the conservative side were to suddenly come out in favor of equality not-including-marriage, I doubt that it would appease our community at this time. But especially not when any time we attempt to get any legal recognition or protection on any level, we are attacked, vilified, and harassed - like the blatant lies saying that protecting us with hate crimes legislation will protect pedophiles and muzzle preachers.
Sorry to digress from the fun stuff. It's hard to hold passions in check when you feel like your life is threatened. But let's keep talking about parenting and homeschooling, because our passion and love for our children unites us in our common humanity, under the overarching umbrella of Universal Mind in which we both reside. There is plenty of room to learn from each other.
Children certainly do need a mother and a father. We can see in society how children raised with out a mother and father experience more difficulties in their lives.
Grrr. I just had a whole response to you, Seda, and then I did something stupid. It's a testament to the late hour and my lack of sleep lately, I suppose. I clicked on a link in search of some info on my blog and lost everything I'd written. Bleh.
Anyway, I was just noting how interesting it is that you express a fear for your life when I feel the exact same fear just for holding and expressing my opinion. I think we could probably agree that Conservatives have more reason to fear at this time given the nature of the homosexual reaction following the passing of Proposition 8 (Marjie Christoffersen, Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon, Maureen Mullarkey, eightmaps, LDS temple protests resulting in vandalism and grafitti, etc.).
People are not as intolerant as homosexual activists would have them painted, Seda. Society has made leaps and bounds in tolerating the homosexual lifestyle. Leaps and bounds. But it is still absolutely true that tolerance does NOT have to equal acceptance. As a parent, you would know this better than those without children. We tolerate much of our children's behaviors because we love them and they are our children. But we don't HAVE to accept those behaviors as we tolerate them. That would lend approval to them when many are destructive. I have a brother who has problems with drinking and drugs. My parents have never stopped loving him. Never. And they even tolerate his addictions, though they have some clear limits about their presence in the home. But they have never, not once, accepted his behaviors or lamented that "this must just be who he is."
I suppose you could retort by suggesting that homosexuality isn't "bad" like drinking and drugs, but that, too, is a matter of opinion.
Anyway, now I've gone off on a tangent and my little guy is crying from a nightmare. Gotta skidaddle. :0)
Pearl,
"we could probably agree that Conservatives have more reason to fear at this time"
I'm not sure we can agree on that. I googled the four names you mentioned, and while I cannot support the hate mail, harassment, and job loss of these individuals, none of them seems to have been physically assaulted (though I may have missed something).
Meanwhile, I know of at least two boys in the last few months who were driven to suicide by bullying - because of their apparent gayness. Last year at least 16 people were murdered in the United States just for being transgendered. http://www.transgenderdor.org/?page_id=192
I don't want to take anything away from the very real persecution and discrimination the LDS church has suffered, especially in the past. Nor do I want to justify the hatred, harassment, vandalism, and vilification LDS people have suffered in the wake of Prop. 8, which I think is reprehensible. I also know that LDS kids (who are protected by hate crimes legislation) are sometimes harassed and bullied on schoolyards. I recognize that you were voting your conscience on Prop 8, which is your right as a citizen and your duty as a person. But when I speak of fear, it is the fear that I will be killed, just for being who I am. It is the fear that my children will be beaten up (like one of my like my trans man friend's 9-year-old son), perhaps injured or killed - just because their parent is a trans woman.
"We tolerate much of our children's behaviors because we love them and they are our children. But we don't HAVE to accept those behaviors as we tolerate them."
That is SO true. My eldest has been constantly reminding me of this for the last 8 years!
"I don't want to take anything away from the very real persecution and discrimination the LDS church has suffered, especially in the past. Nor do I want to justify the hatred, harassment, vandalism, and vilification LDS people have suffered in the wake of Prop. 8, which I think is reprehensible."
Thanks for that, Seda. I really appreciate that acknowledgement.
I want to tell you that I think I understand better what you are talking about. I was watching a show last night with my husband. It is one of our favorites as the three hosts are quite hilarious. However, last night I caught a glimpse of TRUE intolerance toward homosexuals as the three drove through Alabama with cars painted in jest and nearly got themselves and their film crew beat up for their lighthearted carousing. Granted, they knew the feelings of the citizenry they were approaching with their jest, and they acknowledged that they would probably counter some strong reaction to it.
But, I was appalled by the reactions of the locals! They literally ran the three (and their film crew) out of town while pelting their vehicles with stones. My husband and I were stunned. I think there is much for us all to learn about true tolerance and love that does not absolutely require acceptance, but that should be compassionate nonetheless.
I suppose it is my wish that those promoting homosexual "marriage" would cease to willy-nilly assign the word intolerant to those whose opinions do not align with their own. Does that make sense? I think true intolerance, such as I saw the other night on TV, ought to be universally abhorred and properly and promptly condemned. I really do. Without exception. And I am sorry that you live in fear for your life. I live in mild fear of intimidation, but at home I feel secure and safe. I hope someday you can have that, too, Seda.
Pearl,
"I think I understand better what you are talking about."
Thank you for that! I commented on Opine last almost daily for a couple of months last year, and not once did they acknowledge any act of violence against a gay person.
I'm not surprised by the episode you saw. I have friends and acquaitances who bear the scars of anti-gay/trans violence. I've heard the comments sent my way. But I'm very blessed. Even though in most states I could be fired just for being trans, here I have a really good job that is very supportive, and Oregon has placed some limits on discrimination.
Also, I live in a wonderful community that embraces me completely. I live secure and safe here (except that, like any woman, I have to be careful about which alleys or neighborhoods I go into or getting into an elevator with the wrong man). It's only when I travel that things get interesting. But yeah, I'm pretty nervous about visiting my mom in Wyoming. Maybe I'll be safe there, and maybe not.
At any rate, I hope that seeing that puts the violence and intimidation shown you since Prop 8 in some perspective. Not that it is justified - like you, I think we should be careful with words such as "bigot" and "intolerant," and that genuine intolerance should be condemned. However, I think that the gay community overreacted in the passion of their disappointment and sensitivity to the violence we've suffered.
I hope that you can see tolerance bloom within my community for your religion - soon.
One more thought, on homeschooling: I honestly believe it is the most precious gift I can give my children. Well, except for unconditional love.
What, so the true focus of the marriage debate is exploiting children to make homophobic commercials?
Those poor kids - they're going to be so embarrassed when they grow up and have to admit they were part of this on the wrong side. Not that it'd be their fault: their parents are to blame. Statistically, it's a sure thing that at least one of those kids will be lesbian or gay: generationally, it's a sure thing that most or all of them will take a gay couple's freedom to marry as a given, despite the idiotic lines they were given to mouth without understanding in this commercial: and historically, by the time these kids are old enough to know who they want to marry, it's a pretty sure thing that the old anti-gay laws will already have been overturned or set aside, and it just won't be an issue: gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight, any and all of those kids will be able to marry.
Despite their parents getting them to be part of this ad.
Most people are allowed to marry. You just can't marry your sister, your mother, a 13 year old or someone of the same sex.
Even if the law decided that same sex couples could marry, it would not be a real marriage, only an imitation of the union between a man and a woman.
I know I'm late coming to this conversation but wanted to say first of all that I appreciate the resonable tone set by Seda and most others. But I also wanted to address two issues brought up earlier regarding "hate crime" legislation and "being driven to suicide by bullying - because of their apparent gayness."
i have always had an issue with so called "hate crime" legislation even before it regarded homosexuals. There are sufficient laws on the books to address any crimes against homosexuals. This is a view shared by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic (who I believe is also homosexual).
Regarding teen suicides due to bullying because they are gay, I would have to agree with Camille Paglia, lesbian/feminist writer (and others) who said: "...If gay teens are indeed attempting suicide at a higher rate than straight teens, perhaps more questions need to be asked about the genesis of homosexuality. The intolerable sense of isolation may precede the homosexuality, rather than vice versa."
It would also underscore the danger which already exists in taking the organized gay agenda into the schools, a time of life which is in rapid, painful transition for everyone.
Never, never, never is violence appropriate.
Eutychus,
"Regarding teen suicides...The intolerable sense of isolation may precede the homosexuality, rather than vice versa."
Then again, it may not.
"It would also underscore the danger which ... exists in taking the ... gay agenda into the schools"
Then again, it may underscore the importance of educating young people about gay people, rather than isolating and "othering" us further. Or the danger of isolating young people in same-age institutions separated from real life.
I am skeptical that hate crimes legislation makes a significant difference in the level of violence shown to the groups so protected – in the short term. However, it does do one thing effectively. It makes a strong statement that society has both an interest and a value in granting autonomy and freedom to individuals, regardless of their demographic affiliation; that the Holocaust, and any similar ethnic or cultural intimidation or “cleansing,” no matter how small, is an abomination that is not acceptable in our society. I believe that it does make a difference over time; and that even if it doesn’t, the symbolic social statement it makes is worth making, keeping, and holding dear.
I’ve often thought it curious, how people who have feel such great confidence in telling those who have not that they have enough. However, perhaps I’m being unfair. I would be interested in seeing the arguments you’ve made in the past against the inclusion of Christians in hate crimes legislation.
Meanwhile, I will stand firm in support of hate crimes legislation – that which already protects Christians, and that which may someday protect us. And I will pray that, someday, every Christian will look through the hollow words of his Bible, and see, not an abomination, but a loving human being – a child of God.
Seda,
Perhaps you could enlighten me about "hate crimes" legislation designed to protect Christians. No doubt you are far more informed than I about such things, but I am unaware of them.
Educating our children about homosexuality and educating our children about how to treat another human being are, or should be, separate issues. I whole heartedly agree that we need to protect our children from bullying and to teach them to treat each other with respect.
I think it also means teaching our children not to identify themselves by their feelings (be they sexual or otherwise) and it does not extend to teaching that homosexuality is normal. Even Ms Paglia (feminist/lesbian writer) says as much. Tab A goes into slot B I believe was the way she described it.
Those "hollow words" to which you refer are what teach us that we are indeed, every one of us, a child of God, created in the image of God and as such are of great worth. Which speaks to our stand against abortion and bullying and harrassment etc. Those words also make a claim on each of our lives and convict ALL of us in one way or another. The Christian God loves us as we are and where we are but also loves us enough to not let us stay that way. I can rationalize that God made me with a propensity to enjoy looking at naked women (and there is certainly the science to back that up)and thus I should be excused from my desire and appetite for pornography. But it does not. There is a proper order of things and a proper useage of my body and it's desires and appetitites. Even if it were not the case that science points to a number of negative consequences for the individual as well as the family regarding the consumption of pornography, it would still be wrong. I am willing to lay down my life to protect yours, should you be threatened for your views on homosexuality. I am bound as a member of the military and a Christian to do so. I am willing to let you live the life you choose, as you choose, so long as it does not affect my own or that of my family.
But an attempt to redefine marriage and teach questionable science regarding sexuality issues to my children in school does affect my family and others. It has important negative ramifications for society. It is a social experiment, like the so called "sexual revolution" of the sixties which will harm society.
Let's be honest. Do you seek a life where you are let alone to live your life as you choose or do you seek to force others to accept your choices? As I stated before, I will defend your right to the former, but I will fight till I die against the latter.
apologies if my tone sounds anything but charitable. such are the drawbacks of "comments" and e-mail.
apologies also to Pearl for the excessive space taken by my comments
Eutychus:
“Perhaps you could enlighten me about "hate crimes" legislation designed to protect Christians.”
Happy to. “The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.” (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE53S8IM20090429) Last time I checked, Christianity was a religion. I believe it still is.
I appreciate your quotes from Ms. Paglia. While I don’t identify nor necessarily agree with her, they do show that the LGBT community is not quite the stereotypical singularity we are typically represented to be.
I am guessing from your service in the military that you do not mean “Never, never, never is violence appropriate” literally. As a former Marine (Semper Fi) and someone who has set ahimsa, or nonviolence, as my highest aspiration, I still find that “the protective use of force” is sometimes necessary; and so I also am prepared to lay down my life to protect yours should you be threatened for your Christianity. In this we can agree.
A brief google search for hate crimes reveals some interesting statistics, however. In Dec. 2008, the Christian Century reported that hate crimes against religions were going down, while those against homosexuals were rising. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_24_125/ai_n31063544/, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm The FBI doesn’t break it down very well, but in 2007 reported no religion-motivated murders of Christians, and single-digit numbers of assaults and intimidation, compared to 5 murders of gays and lesbians, and hundreds of assaults and intimidation. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_07.htm) (I’m not sure that’s accurate - http://www.reclinercommentaries.com/2009/03/hate-crimes-against-christians.html lists 3 incidents with possibly up to 9 Christians killed in 2007 because of their religion – and I remember reading about one or two of them. Maybe they were committed in states without hate crimes legislation??) Meanwhile, http://www.transgenderdor.org/?page_id=192 lists 6 trans people killed in the US in 2007, and 16 in 2008, for being or appearing transgendered.
To put it in perspective, about 80% of Americans are Christians, about 4% are homosexual, and perhaps as many as 0.5% are transgendered.
Like you, I seek to live the life I choose in peace and freedom, and to have that life respected in the public sphere; and I don’t want to force anyone else to do anything. However, when around 40% of the children in this country are taught that I and people like me are abominations to God, that we are abnormal and unnatural and depraved and insane and dangerous, it DOES affect me. It affects my family. It affects our safety. It affects our lives.
You say that our love is wrong, that it is a sin against God, regardless of whether we are monogamous; and that we damage our children by sharing with them our lives. You feel comfortable making moral judgments about my life, but you do not know my life. You base those judgments on words on a book – hollow words, because, regardless of wisdom that may be in and around them, they do not account for me; nor for my relationship with God.
I do not believe that there is need for animosity between Christians and gays. I’ve seen plenty of both getting along just fine with each other. But I don’t think we’re going to get there until we start to listen to each other – really listen. I know you want to protect your family; I want to protect mine. Our words are important. They DO have effect – often not the effect we desire. And what I hear, again and again, is Christians attacking us – often behind a veneer of love. I hear gays crying out in fear and rage, yelling “bigotry!” and “hypocrisy!”
And it breaks my heart.
My apologies for the politics and length of comment, Pearl. I’ll back off now and let eutychus have the last word, with his resurrected life.
Pearl,
You haven't posted or commented lately, and I'm hoping that you and your family are well. You're in my prayers.
Hey Seda! Everything's fine. Thanks for asking. Life is just at one of those top-o'-the-hill busy moments. July should see me back in the valley (let's hope). ;0)
It has been a crazy hectic week. End of school activities, birthdays etc. Imagine my surprise to note that I had been (graciously?) offered the last word by Seda. My apologies for the lateness of my response but how can I turn down such an invitation. I will post my response in three parts. Sorry Pearl, I’ll make such responses on my own page from now on.:-)
“The current law, enacted four decades ago,…”
Yes, I am familiar with the law. But the way you kept talking about “ …that which already protects Christians,” etc. I thought you were referring to another law. Not quite wrong but not entirely correct in the way you keep presenting it. I’ll just write this off to literary flourish.
I have always opposed “hate crime” legislation because they were unnecessary and because of the arguments of Andrew Sullivan e.g. who say:
"The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that - and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time. The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for HRC, more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool -"
The latest formulation of the law is particularly insidious because of the restrictions it will place on religious speech and the protection it may well give to any and all 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that are humanly imaginable.
So, on this we can agree. No one should be attacked or harassed and we are willing to protect each other. I can also agree with you that protective force is sometimes necessary having gone through a time while in the military, where I questioned any use of violence myself. Good for us. Group hug. Thanks for your service.
“5 murders of gays and lesbians, and hundreds of assaults and intimidation.”
If those numbers are correct then I will agree that is a bad situation but I’m sure you understand that bias "incidents" can be graffiti, theft, mean remarks, etc., even absent evidence. The FBI "Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation," Table 4, cited one alleged "anti-homosexual murder" in 2004 and none since. Once again, with the flourish.
Part 2
"I appreciate your quotes from Ms. Paglia. While I don’t identify nor necessarily agree with her,"
Well, of course you don’t agree with her. Because she rejects your claim of normalcy. Would she also be considered a “bigot” or a “hypocrite?” Just what label does the homosexual community wish to place on her or the “Queer By Choice” folks (queerbychoice.com) who understand that there is no scientific evidence backing a “gay gene” etc.?
"...they do show that the LGBT community is not quite the stereotypical singularity we are typically represented to be."
Interestingly you then go and make your own broad stroke stereotypical statement about Christians.
“Like you, I seek to live the life I choose in peace and freedom, and to have that life respected in the public sphere;"
Here lies the crux of our differences.
I don’t care who or what you sleep with but if you are going to define yourself by your sexuality it is not reasonable to expect universal respect.
"and I don’t want to force anyone else to do anything."
Yes you do. You want it taught in the schools that homosexuality and the like are OK and normal. Nothing in biology, sociology or medicine backs up this view and not even everyone in the GLBT culture believes it. Even by your own numbers, a mere 5% of the population can be described thus.
"However, when around 40% of the children in this country are taught that I and people like me are abominations to God,"
You make some big assumptions here. Your behavior is the problem. You are not an abomination, your behavior is.
"that we are abnormal and unnatural"
your behavior is.
"and depraved and insane and dangerous,"
I’ve seen the parades and it would seem to be an apt description of some of the group.
" it DOES affect me. It affects my family. It affects our safety. It affects our lives.”
Upon this we agree.
"You feel comfortable making moral judgments about my life, but you do not know my life."
This is silly. Society and our system of laws are based on moral judgments. We all make moral judgments.
"You base those judgments on words on a book"
and biology and sociology and medicine
You base yours on your feelings and your sexuality.
"hollow words, because, regardless of wisdom that may be in and around them, they do not account for me; nor for my relationship with God."
They do account for you and you don’t like it.
"You say that our love is wrong, that it is a sin against God, regardless of whether we are monogamous; and that we damage our children by sharing with them our lives."
Divorce damages our children. Are you telling me that (as in your own case) that telling your children that their dad is now their mom, won’t?
"What I hear, again and again, is Christians attacking us – often behind a veneer of love. I hear gays crying out in fear and rage, yelling “bigotry!” and “hypocrisy!”"
What would love look like from a Christian for you? Acceptance? I suspect so. But I cannot believe that it is the loving thing to do to turn my back on the facts:
After AIDS and chemical abuse, same-sex battery is the third major health hazard for homosexual men. Lesbians' first health hazard is cancer, followed closely by chemical abuse and, same-sex battery.
Is it loving to ignore the fact that the lifespan for gay men is less than that of heterosexual men or that a large percentage of gay men were abused as children? The homosexual weekly the Advocate reports 21 percent of its upscale, largely white, male respondents were sex abuse victims by age 15. These are self reported numbers!
Or that a large percentage of lesbian women were abused by male figures in their lives not just once but numerous times?
I have wept for you Seda, real tears when I think of how alone you must have felt and probably still do, as you wrestle with your trans gender issues and self described self-hatred. But I think you have been led astray.
Every resurection begins with a crucifixion- a crucifixtion of the will.
Eutychus
Just a correction on my meaning - when I say "the LGBT community is not quite the stereotypical singularity we are typically represented to be," I am referring to our culture and the media, not Christians.
Don't cry for me. My life is really blessed. My kids are doing better since I transitioned. My life is full of genuine and deep friendships. And you're right that I was led astray, but that was long ago, and I've corrected course.
That is not meant as a last word on this discussion, and I hope it doesn't appear to be one. Only acknowlegment of you're argument, and response to your close.
Have a nice life. :-)
Post a Comment